Quote:The book is ok (I finished it in three days or something like that) but doesn't come close to the artistic quality the film has.

Let's call that your opinion. Perhaps if I watched the film first and read the book after that mine would be similar but that's not how it happened and ultimately it's not. I didn't have such "issue" with The Godfather 2 so I can give it its due as a great movie. The third one is just OK compared to the other two.

Well, I'm perfectly fine with calling it my opinion and it is, but let's not also forget that while the movie is considered one of the masterpieces of 20th century cinema almost universally by both critics and general population, the book holds no similar significance in literature circles. ____________
All naughty talking and living are cool - Ghost

It evolved faster because it is tied to technology and it so happened that it appeared in an era when everything technology-related evolved much faster than before. Other than that, you have more than 2 millenia and multiple cultural layers even on one and the same place of the world of literature, standards are literally ancient, while for cinema even I am not exactly "young generation" to judge.

I'm not talking about the technological aspects of it, notions involving creative mediums are open to transference. Literature had to reach a state of modern story telling (alongside the birth of modernity itself) where as cinema was born into it. Yet, this is not exactly what matters regarding your objection either because modern literature is a set of its own, Puzo is not sitting next to names like Murakami or Hemingway or Calvino etc, where as Coppola is considered one of the great directors of this century, and mostly because of the Godfather trilogy. Justifiably, the Godfather as a book, is a bestseller and only a bestseller, the film is not just a blockbuster though.

Usually, books have the advantage of providing character depth in a way films can't. The medium of text is much more convenient for presenting inner thoughts, hidden motives, psychological detail. In the case of the Godfather though, the movie doesn't fall short at all, on the contrary, Coppola's universe manages to present the dramatic aspect of a family in a much more impactful way compared to Puzo's journalistic event telling.
____________
All naughty talking and living are cool - Ghost

If you're talking about Michael Corleone - perhaps yes. Vito Corleone on the other hand, apart from Marlon Brando's signature performance, is not as well developed as in the book in my opinion (due to lack of time among other things) - you need the second Godfather to "finish" his character (although you also need it for Michael to some extent).
But anyway, none of these has anything to do with Tarantino so let's move to another thread if you want to continue this discussion. I'm going to see the new Trainspotting now.

fred79 said:
i haven't watched "django", and i won't. after i heard what it was about, i was like, come on, man. my sister's boyfriend(who's black) tried to talk me into watching it by selling the story, and i just shook my head. the catering tarantino does makes him look like a cuck, and not the respectable and stylish filmmaker he is. he doesn't need people to like him THAT badly. ffs.

Could you elaborate?

what's to elaborate? it's pretty clear what i mean, and what i'm referring to.

Also, a director taking on one of the historical problems of his country is not "populism" either, Tarantino uses templates of popular culture in his movies but he's not a populist. For instance, in the Hateful Eight, which also has a political sub-plot about racism, black people are racist, too. It's not like he gives in to a safe space of harmless political correctness.

no, i was referring to the pandering of the entire current black movement. sure, he uses vengeance a lot in his movies, but when you're taking a slave, and using him to turn the tables on slave owners, it's a little obvious what demographic you're trying to please. just like when the french woman killed hitler and a bunch of nazi's. just like when the women killed the antagonist at the end of "death proof". those are 3 movies of his that have that theme, and it's definitely pandering. if not only to american audiences(where ALL WRONGS MUST BE RIGHTED, at least in film), then strictly to the current black community(who keep wanting to relive old prejudices with every movie that comes out regarding black people overcoming the racism of white people), to anti-nazi sentiment(pretty generic actually, but now WHAT IF THIS HAPPENED TO THE NAZI'S became a movie), to obviously catering to feminism in "death proof"(a stunt driver who suddenly screams like a girl and runs when shot, nevermind that he's a snowing bad-ass STUNT DRIVER WHO KILLS PEOPLE IN A STUNT CAR, AND DOESN'T WHINE ABOUT THE DAMAGE HE TAKES IN EVERY MURDEROUS CRASH)...

like i said, it's obvious that he's appealing to specific audiences. and that's catering. and i HATE when film makers cater to audiences. ESPECIALLY when that catering is pushing an AGENDA.

which is why i didn't like inglorious basterds, the ending of death proof, and is why i won't even bother watching django; because it'll just be more of that same catering.

That French woman dies though in not exactly the most flattering way either, besides she's far from being portrayed as objectively 'good'. Django is a different story, the protagonist simply (whether through writers or plain-mediocre acting) doesn't seem to develop at all. The French chick did in Inglorious, and sure it ends in a way that caters to the overall anti-nazi message, but in Tarentino movies following individuals rather than the overarching story is my thing, I love how every person has their own little story (reminds me of Dark souls series of all things).

For instance where the blonde chick gets strangled by the German dude, her own story just ended, I wasn't thinking about how her death impacts on the main story, was looking at her as an individual with her own little story that ended.
____________
Born to be a hooker.

Death Proof was another fantastic movie Why do you insist on pissing on so many fantastic tales of death & destruction?

I understand your point of view but I suppose I just don't see it in the radical way that you see it. Slavery played a huge role in the 16th-19th century world, especially in the American continents who were not the sellers, but the receivers, so they inherited the culture & the consequences. Black history is American history and American history is black history. They are fused together because of how intimately it shaped the future of the nation and continues to do so.

You really think a movie about slavery means he must specifically be pandering to black people? But the topic is so huge. And even if he is a little bit, why do you see that as such a big deal? Is there anything about the movie that is outrageously misleading? (other than the obvious cinematic flare, like a solo gunfighter wiping out a posy)

There are black people in this country who literally think white people should be exterminated. They are morally on par with Adolf Hitler. It's not like any of that was promoted in the film or white people were degraded of their dignity & humanity.
____________

tSar-Ivor said:Christoph Waltz is literally the only thing of worth in the film (Django) imho. That said though, it's far from bad.

I say the "house negro" played by Samuel Jackson was also a very interesting character, Tarantino always brings out the best in Samuel Jackson. DiCaprio's performance was also noticable, especially the dinner scene with the skull and the outburst was impressive.
____________
All naughty talking and living are cool - Ghost

Oh crap totally skipped my mind, yea the vibes Samuel L. Jackson gave off, Christ, really showed off why exactly the 'house negros' are the most hated kind (in a different way than I imagined and so much more sinister and powerful rather than weak and feeble, but Tarantino manages to meld the two fantastically).
____________
Born to be a hooker.

blizzardboy said:You really think a movie about slavery means he must specifically be pandering to black people? But the topic is so huge. And even if he is a little bit, why do you see that as such a big deal? Is there anything about the movie that is outrageously misleading? (other than the obvious cinematic flare, like a solo gunfighter wiping out a posy)

There are black people in this country who literally think white people should be exterminated. They are morally on par with Adolf Hitler. It's not like any of that was promoted in the film or white people were degraded of their dignity & humanity.

that's not my point. my point is he clearly opposed reality(regarding the subject matter), and i believe he did so just to pander to the current black community. he pandered to feminists(or just women in general), when he opposed the reality of his own character when he made stuntman mike a squalling snow at the end of "death proof". he opposed reality and pandered to american audiences in general when he had a french woman(when the popular opinion, as i understand it, is that the french pretty much laid down for the nazi's. but i'm not a history buff, so don't take my word for that) gun down a bunch of nazi's, including hitler himself(or was he blown up or burned alive? i forget now. it doesn't matter HOW he died, really. just that a french woman did it). if you can't see how that's pandering, then i don't know what to tell you, man. sure, they're entertaining movies(i have no doubt that django would be just as entertaining as his other films; minus "grindhouse", which i won't see because i thought it was just over-the-top b-movie ridiculousness, which i've been losing my overall taste for over the years), but because they're obviously pandering, i can't really get into them.

you didn't see that kind of pandering in any of his other movies, did you? and they were awesome. no reason that he would EVER have to pander. he's a great film maker. he should be able to stand on that credit alone. but i realize that actors/actresses/film makers/celebrities in general have this innate desire to be liked(e.g. "you like me! you really like me!"), so... i don't know. maybe i'm just picky. or maybe tarantino should understand(as so many other celebrities should), that they are already liked, and quite well.

tSar-Ivor said:Christoph Waltz is literally the only thing of worth in the film (Django) imho. That said though, it's far from bad.

I say the "house negro" played by Samuel Jackson was also a very interesting character, Tarantino always brings out the best in Samuel Jackson. DiCaprio's performance was also noticable, especially the dinner scene with the skull and the outburst was impressive.

Recently watched "Jango ..." - and that was a VERY bad idea, I have been convinced by a "Pulp Fiction", and I have thought that "Django .." must be cool too - I was so wrong!
The movie itself is a combination of nonsense and a huge violence nonsense.

1) I am not saying that slavery topic must not bi highlighted, of course it must, at least this may reduce the possibility of the same mistake will be repeated into future.

2) The violence in the film was ridiculous - in the reality much more horrific things was. So the goal has been not reached, and the violence in the movie have accumulated a opposite effect despite of the desires of the creators of the movie (I hope I have catches their goals).

3) Hollywood stamps change the movie to the level of the films about super-heroes. I am not saying that the films about Batman sux (but it is sux indeed), but trying to add such stuff into a "historical drama", well - I don't like it.

The few exceptions: The character of Di'Caprio was amazing, this char and char of mr Jakson - it is only two thing worth to be watched in this movie. Landlord was amazing real - perfectly like one historical char - Adolf Hitler, the scene at the table was amazing example of the how propaganda actually works, frostysh even freeze his breath and opened mouse: steady speech with inclusions of the hating rage explosions and ahh little addition of "science", somebody who have written the text was truly aware of propaganda styles, that was a horrific dark humor and satire on the level far beyong frostysh - bravo! Mr Jakson char was amazing too, especially the speech about "numbers" and stuff that was something surrealistic!

Conclusion: The movie sux by default for an exception of the few moments and two characters.

P.S. Does anybody know mr Di'Caprios facebook? I must tell him to go in politics, I mean even a pity actor - Schwartznegger have made a politic stuff. Imho mr Di'Carpio has been made right for the president chair! - It is not a joke, I really want to tell that to mr Di'Caprio, I am ready to restore my facebook account for that purpose!

it's funny how 3 out of the 5 people who have hc accounts from sweden parrot the exact same snow when the things they feel so overwhelmingly strong about give them cause to lash out at people with their propaganda at every turn. you know, not everyone who speaks out against the popular catering to certain agendas, hates women or black people. believe it or not. which you most likely won't.

Those same people also have a higher percentage to be horribly raped and murdered by asylum seekers.

They probably support the "integration" of ISIS militants as well. Thank bleep Sverigestan isn't part of NATO. If it was, it would be WW3 already.

Going back on topic, Pulp Fiction and The Hateful 8 are Tarantinos best work. Pulp Fiction for being probably the most quotable and memorable of the lot.
And The Hareful 8 is a deviation from your traditional "spaghetti" western, and perfectly plays on the classic murder mystery plot. Something original, of which we don't see much these days.

Also, to be more specific, the main woman character in Inglorious Basterds isn't french, she's french-jewish.
____________
Lithuanian folklore:
The Good and the Evil grab a few beers and go to watch how the neighbor's house is burning down.
* * *
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior